Joystiq has an image of a store display in a Rochester, Minnesota Best Buy that seems to show a February 1 launch date for Diablo III, Blizzard's upcoming action/RPG sequel. They have some follow ups that don't completely confirm or deny this, and word that the end-cap was legit, but has since been removed. Meanwhile, the Best Buy Website now shows a February 1 release date for the game.

briktal wrote on Jan 9, 2012, 11:33:Well I was counting "not buying the game specifically because of this requirement" as "being upset".

Why does Guild Wars require you to be online for campaign play? They could've made the whole game for a single player + henchmen, with optional online multiplayer. Is it only a blatant attempt at control and anti-piracy when it's a sequel to a game that didn't have it? It is bad DRM if it is added to a sequel but not an issue if it is a new IP?

Apples and oranges stuff that's already been answered IMO, one is a quasi-MMO with ambitions at being a full one, the other was a game with distinctly separate functionality. I'm still waiting for someone to give me a reasonable design explanation that the campaign requires a persistent internet connection. That's really the basis for peoples frustrating here, most people reasonably expect internet checks these days but it's the persistent aspect that is bothering people.

I suspect no one can give one because there is no valid reasoning behind the move, it's strictly protection of their property or whatever you want to label it.

That's not an inherently evil thing or something, it just has obvious downsides and potential sources of frustration that some people here seem to want to handwave away. Having experienced some of those first hand I don't really see how voicing them makes people unreasonable haters or whatever.